Plant Soil (2024) 495:3–12
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-05988-7
METHODS PAPER
Rapid in situ nutrient element distribution
in plants and soils using laser‑induced breakdown
spectroscopy (LIBS)
Hunter B. Andrews · Madhavi Z. Martin
Ann M. Wymore · Udaya C. Kalluri
Received: 8 January 2023 / Accepted: 10 March 2023 / Published online: 5 April 2023
© UT-Battelle, LLC 2023
Abstract
Aims The aim of this study is to develop and test the
applicability of a rapid in situ plant chemistry profil-
ing technique to determine elemental composition of
small-volume plant and soil samples obtained from a
woody bioenergy crop species, Populus trichocarpa.
Expanding the research tools available to characterize
the nutrient element correlations among plant tissue
types and soil depths is a critical need in the path of
understanding productivity and adaptation of plants
This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle
LLC under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the
US Department of Energy (DOE). The US government
retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for
publication, acknowledges that the US government
retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide
license to publish or reproduce the published form of this
manuscript, or allow others to do so, for US government
purposes. DOE will provide public access to these results
of federally sponsored research in accordance with the
DOE Public Access Plan (http://​energy.​gov/​downl​oads/​
doe-​public-​access-​plan).
Responsible Editor: Antony Van der Ent.
H. B. Andrews (*)
Radioisotope Science and Technology Division, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, 1 Bethel Valley Rd.,
Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA
e-mail: andrewshb@ornl.gov
M. Z. Martin · A. M. Wymore · U. C. Kalluri
Biosciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1
Bethel Valley Rd., Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA
·
to variations in external abiotic and biotic factors and
developing sustainable perennial bioenergy crops
that are co-optimized for biomass valorization above-
ground and carbon sequestration belowground.
Methods Several plant root, stem, and soil samples
were tested using laser-induced breakdown spectros-
copy (LIBS) to evaluate the presence and distribution
of nutrient elements. Samples were tested as collected
and after being dried and cross sectioned to evaluate
the effectiveness of using LIBS for in situ analysis on
plant samples.
Results The collected LIBS spectra show the ele-
mental peaks were the same in both the as collected
and prepared samples for roots and stems. Qualitative
amounts of elements such as H, C, N, O, Li, Na, Mg,
K, Ca, Fe, Al, and Si were able to be identified rap-
idly in raw samples.
Conclusion Here we demonstrate suitability of
LIBS in obtaining rapid, in situ, elemental distribu-
tion in plant and soil samples, utilizing only small
sample volumes and minimal sample preparation.
This demonstration opens up a new rapid phenotyping
U. C. Kalluri (*)
Center for Bioenergy Innovation, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA
e-mail: kalluriudayc@ornl.gov
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 4 Plant Soil (2024) 495:3–12
avenue necessary to fill the asymmetrical knowledge
gaps in belowground performance of plant systems.
Keywords Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy ·
Rapid phenotyping · Bioenergy crops · Plant nutrients
Introduction
Plant performance, including growth and stress
response, ability is determined by levels and distri-
bution of various nutrients elements; macronutrients
[nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), cal-
cium (Ca), sulfur (S), magnesium (Mg), carbon (C),
oxygen (O), hydrogen (H)] and micronutrients [such
as silicon (Si), iron (Fe), boron (B), chlorine (Cl),
manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), molybde-
num (Mo), nickel (Ni)]. These elements are essential
to plant growth and survival and range in their func-
tions from structural to that of metabolic/enzymatic.
Nutrition status of plants and elemental composition
of their tissues is a factor of plant genetics, environ-
mental variations, and the dynamic interactions of
the two in the rhizosphere (Lynch 2019). Plant genet-
ics contribute to both the active and passive nutrient
transport mechanisms throughout radial and vertical
plant axes by determining influx and efflux transport-
ers, ion and water uptake efficiency, mineral assimi-
lation, vasculature and suberization patterns (Morgan
and Connolly 2013; Che et al. 2018; Harman-Ware
et al. 2021). The plasticity of genetically determined
plant traits is in turn known to be influenced by vari-
ation in the surrounding environment. These envi-
ronmental factors include soil characteristics (chemi-
cal, physical and microbiome composition), climate
(temperature, moisture, etc.), and the highly dynamic
abiotic and biotic interaction space of the rhizosphere
(Kuppe et al. 2022). Microbiome composition, micro-
bial colonization, and activity in root endosphere,
rhizosphere, and soil have plant and ecosystem level
consequences. Beneficial root colonizers are known
to impact plant performance and nutrient status, and
vice versa plant nutrient uptake mechanisms and
suberization impact microbiome composition (Qu
et al. 2020; Salas-González et al. 2021).
While the interdependent relationships among
structural, chemical, and functional properties of plant
root, root rhizosphere, and soil have generally been
acknowledged in plant physiology, crop productivity,
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
and ecology fields, the specific correlations among
and larger impacts of variation in these properties
is poorly understood. Having the ability to easily
and quickly characterize the variation in composi-
tion of and correlation among the nutrient elements
in various plant tissue types and soil sample types is,
therefore, expected to greatly aid in discerning the
critical components within coupled biogeochemi-
cal, structure-function, plant-soil processes with the
most potential to improve 1) sustainable production
of bioenergy and food crops, 2) soil health and phy-
toremediation, and 3) carbon sequestration potential
in soils. In the context of the latter, C storage capac-
ity of soils is known to be influenced by range of soil
properties including nutrient reserves (Lal 2018).
For example, C sequestration ability was reported to
be limited both directly by N and indirectly by nutri-
ents such as P, Mo, and K needed to in turn support
N fixation (van Groenigen et al. 2006). Ability to
characterize elemental distribution in various plant
tissues and co-assess with spatiotemporal variation in
soil and rhizosphere properties is immensely useful in
the plant and ecosystem science communities’ quest
to correlate above and belowground processes. Such
analytical capabilities are also integral to measuring
and validating the effectiveness of crop biotechnology
(e.g., plant chemistry)- and management (e.g., bio-
char amendments)- based strategies to enhance soil
carbon sequestration (Jansson et al. 2010).
Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS)
is an optical spectroscopy technique well suited for
rapid elemental composition measurements. LIBS
is performed by focusing a nanosecond pulsed laser
onto a sample surface, at which point the energy
density is enough to ablate the material and form a
plasma plume. This short-lived plasma will quickly
cool and emit characteristic emissions which can be
measured with a spectrometer. The resultant spec-
tra provide an elemental fingerprint of the tested
sample. LIBS boasts robust traits such as requiring
little-to-no sample preparation, being sensitive to
nearly every element in the periodic table, and being
useful regardless of sample form (i.e., solids, liq-
uids, and gases). The sensitivity of LIBS for detect-
ing light elements is of great benefit to its applica-
tion on biological samples. LIBS is capable of both
qualitative and quantitative analysis; for the latter
matrix matched standards are needed for calibration
such that the ablation process for the calibration set
Plant Soil (2024) 495:3–12
and analyzed samples are the same, or very simi-
lar. When a proper calibration is performed LIBS
has been shown to have detection limits on the
10–100 ppm scale.
The use of LIBS in the detection of elements
in biological and environmental samples has been
demonstrated previously (Martin and Cheng 2000;
Cremers and Radziemski 2013; Miziolek et al.
2006; Hahn 2009; Hahn and Omenetto 2012;
Modlitbová et al. 2020, 2021). Specifically, LIBS
has been used to detect soil carbon which has
been identified by soil scientist in the last decade
as the opportunity to manage terrestrial C stocks
as a strategy to mitigate increasing ­CO2 concen-
trations in the atmosphere (Paustian et al. 1997;
Conant et al. 2001; Lal 2004; West et al. 2008;
Martin et al. 2003, 2007, 2010, 2013). Further-
more, since plants absorb nutrients in substantial
amounts along with nonessential and essential ele-
ments in trace amounts, there have been a number
of studies published that demonstrate the ability of
LIBS to scan leaves and stems to show the distribu-
tion and accumulation of these elements in spruce
(Krajcarova et al. 2013), in poplar leaves and bark
samples (Martin et al. 2017), and in switchgrass
(Martin et al. 2021). A recent study showed that
the elemental concentrations obtained by LIBS in
plant materials correlated well to other elemental
techniques such as inductively coupled plasma-
mass spectrometry, atomic absorption spectroscopy
and neutron activation analysis techniques that
are the gold standard analytical methods used for
the quantification of these elements (Martin et al.
2021). Other recent works have shown LIBS to be
a useful tool for mapping the elemental distribution
in plant samples; while the results are very use-
ful these measurements necessitate careful sample
preparation (e.g., mounting, embedding in wax, or
freezing), precise sample stages for high resolution
mapping, and the measurements can take longer
than traditional LIBS measurements (Krajcarova
et al. 2013; Singh et al. 2019, 2021; Modlitbová
et al. 2020, 2021). While these studies provide
high resolution mapping at the expense of time and
throughput, we seek to benefit from LIBS’ vast ele-
mental sensitivity and rapid analysis time.
The goal of this research is to demonstrate the
high-throughput capability of LIBS for biological
samples with no sample preparation rapidly revealing
5
plant chemistry. To test the applicability of LIBS as
a rapid in situ elemental profiling technique of small
volume samples for bioenergy research, we leveraged
here plant and soil samples from greenhouse grown
plants of a woody bioenergy crop species, Populus
trichocarpa. The ultimate goal of this work would
be to expand the testing procedure described here to
the testing of hundreds of field samples to provide a
new rapid phenotyping avenue necessary to fill the
asymmetrical knowledge gaps in belowground perfor-
mance of plant systems.
Materials and methods
This study used exemplar samples (i.e., Root 1 and
Root 2) from developmentally variable sample types,
plants were either grown in water or potting mix.
Hydroponic root tissue sample (Root 1) was obtained
from a young four-week old P. trichocarpa wild-
type plant growing in distilled water in the green-
house, and considered younger, tender root with
minimal secondary growth and lignification. Root
2 was obtained from a 16-week old plant growing
in soil pot, and considered older, mature root with
pronounced secondary growth and lignification as
shown in Fig. 1. Sample Shoot 1 was obtained from
the same 16-week old greenhouse plant. For gener-
ating samples from the 16-week old plant grown in
soil potting mix, greenwood stem cuttings were veg-
etatively propagated and grown in soil pots with pot-
ting mix (Fafard Professional Potting Mix, Sun Gro
Fig. 1  Photo of as collected samples mounted onto slide for
LIBS analysis. The scale bar is provided for reference and is
equal to the diameter of the pellet tested
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 6 Plant Soil (2024) 495:3–12
Horticulture, Agawam, MA, USA) for four months
under controlled greenhouse temperature of ~25 °C
and light cycles of 16 h day length as previously
described (Payyavula et al. 2022).
Samples were taken from plants of different
maturities to investigate any differences in the laser
sampling to inform future experiments. The stem and
root samples were freshly harvested from greenhouse
grown plants using a scalpel and blade, and promptly
transferred to double distilled water. The soil sam-
ple was scooped from the top one inch of potted
soil plants using a spatula. Fresh samples were kept
at room temperature and transported within minutes
to LIBS laboratory for further processing. For this
study, only technical replicates were used (i.e., the
samples were tested multiple times) whereas in future
studies for biological insights five or more biological
replicates of each sample will be minimally required
to derive statistically supported differences in nutrient
information, which is a future direction of this work.
This also emphasizes the need for a high throughput
method to not only test hundreds of different plant
samples but also their replicates.
First, the samples evaluated in this test study were
examined with as little sample preparation as possi-
ble. Excess liquid was removed from the as collected
samples’ surfaces and then they were mounted onto
microscope slides using double-sided tape for initial
analysis. A photo of the as collected samples is shown
in Fig. 1. The soil sample was pressed onto the tape,
but residual moisture in the soil caused issues with
adhesion. Following the initial measurements, the
samples were then cross sectioned and dried for addi-
tional tests. This second set of test samples was used
to determine if more sample preparation may enhance
the LIBS results. For this second set of tests the dried
soil was pressed into a pellet (13 mm in diameter).
All samples were testing using the LIBS-8 sys-
tem from Applied Photonics. This system included a
1064 nm Nd:YAG laser (Litron Nano) with a 100 μm
spot size, an imaging kit from Applied Photonics, a
motorized XYZ translation stage, and a multichan-
nel spectrometer. This multichannel spectrometer
includes eight Avantes miniature Czerny-turner spec-
trometers with CMOS detectors, ranging in wave-
length from 190 to 1000 nm with a resolution ranging
from 0.05–0.17 nm. For these tests the spectrometer
gate delay was set to 3 μs and the exposure time was
set to 25 μs. The laser energy was controlled through
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
altering the laser’s Q-switch delay and was set to
60 mJ. A greater shot energy was used due to mois-
ture impacting the plasma formation. The translation
stage allowed for sample surfaces to be scanned along
their length with single shots in 300 μm steps. The
soil pellet was scanned in a 6 × 6 pattern (300 μm
spacing) with a 5 shot average spectrum saved at
each shot location. The included imaging kit allowed
for precise locations to be selectively tested and the
focal point of the laser to be properly aligned with
the sample surface. During all tests air was passed at
10 L ­min−1 across the top of the shooting location to
prevent dust accumulation on optical components.
Results
To better evaluate the ability to use LIBS for rapid
in situ analysis of plant samples, the root and shoot
samples were measured first with minimal sample
preparation and then with more specific preparation
to compare.
Fresh samples
The raw samples were scanned along their length
shown in Fig. 1. The averaged spectra, normalized
the largest emission (393.38 nm Ca I), are shown
in Fig. 2. Figure 2(a) shows the three spectra with a
0.2 baseline offset to better see the similarities in the
emission profiles. The spectra are dominated by the
emissions from Ca, Mg, C, Na, H, N, K, and O. These
elements correspond to major macronutrient species.
The H, N, and O emissions are attributed to both
these species in the ablated sample and the atmos-
phere where the plasma formed. Figure 2(b-e) pro-
vide a closer look at specific spectral windows. Here,
the emissions of additional micronutrients Fe, Si, and
Al can be seen.
Minor differences in the average spectra can
be seen at this scale. Root 1 and Root 2 both show
the presence of Fe, Si and Al whereas Shoot 1 does
not show these micronutrients. The average spectra
appear to only show Fe in Root 1, but upon further
investigation it was found that the Fe in Root 1 was
not homogenously dispersed rather it was concen-
trated in approximately 4 mm of the scanned length
(Fig. 3). Fe is similarly located in a concentrated loca-
tion in Root 2, but the size and concentration of this
Plant Soil (2024) 495:3–12
Fig. 2  Normalized and averaged LIBS spectra of the freshly prepared samples; a stacked plot to show similarity of emission pro-
files, b-e zoomed in spectral regions with labeled emissions
region is far smaller than that of Root 1 (intensity of
0.03 versus 0.25 arbitrary units for Root 2 versus Root
1, respectively). LIBS typically has limits of detection
~10–100 ppm, so the qualitative verification of these
micronutrients indicates their levels are above this in
the samples.
Soil from the greenhouse planters was tested
as well. Unfortunately, the fresh soil had a mois-
ture level which interfered with the soils ability to
adhere to the double sided taped used for mounting
7
the roots and shoots. The soil moisture caused
clumping on the slides; this became an issue as the
shockwave from the laser ablation process would
move these clumps around or completely off the
slide. This resulted in difficulties collecting repli-
cate spectra, as well as a significant level of noise
in the spectra baseline. Emission peaks for many
of the macronutrients that dominated the root and
shoot spectra were present, but lower mineral emis-
sions were convoluted with the signal noise. Based
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 8 Plant Soil (2024) 495:3–12
Fig. 3  Sparsity of Fe emissions in Root 1 across the line scan
on this, the soil was dried and pressed into a pellet
for a second round of testing.
Prepared samples
Following the measurements on the fresh samples,
the roots and shoots were dried, cross sectioned,
and mounted on slides for another round of meas-
urements. The normalized and averaged spectra are
shown in Fig. 4. The spectra are overlaid with the
corresponding fresh measurements for comparison.
The intensities of many peaks increased, but no new
species were identified. Conversely, the intensities
of the H, N, and O peaks decreased in the prepared
Fig. 4  Stacked normalized and averaged LIBS spectra of the
dried and cross sectioned root and shoot samples. The corre-
sponding normalized spectra from the fresh samples are over-
laid in black for comparison. There are minimal changes to the
spectra; the greatest changes are the reduction in moisture and
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
samples. This is due to the removal of excess mois-
ture and changes in the ablation process resulting
in better coupling of the laser and the sample (i.e.,
less atmospheric species excited in the plasma). The
presence of Fe appears to disappear in the Root 1
cross section versus the fresh sample; however, as
discussed previously Fe forms in local clusters so
its absence in the spectrum shown in Fig. 4 is sim-
ply a lack of a Fe hot spot (presence of Fe at the
specific location). It is also possible that the dry-
ing of the plant material induced redistribution of
some elements in the plant tissue; this supports the
use of fresh samples versus prepared (i.e., dried and
sliced) samples.
The prepared soil pellet resulted in a more reliable
sample. The higher density and hardness, along with
a flat surface, compared to the fresh soil permitted the
pellet to be scanned in a grid pattern with each loca-
tion being shot multiple times. This provided far more
spectra and a better bulk measurement of the soil.
The normalized and averaged spectra of the fresh and
pelletized soil are shown in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5(a), the
stacked spectra appear to be largely similar; however,
upon looking at Fig. 5(a-e) the increased signal inten-
sity and lower noise level in the pelletized sample can
be seen. More the bulk of the detected species, this
has a minor impact but in the case of trace minerals
the decreased noise increases the measurement sen-
sitivity. The soil spectra correspond with the tested
roots and shoots. The same nutrients (Fe, Mg, Si, Al,
Ca, Na, H, N, K, and O) can be seen in both the plant
samples and the soil; these elements largely appear
atmosphere species from the differences in how the samples
ablate. Notice that in all spectra there is no emission on the
shoulder of the H 656 nm peak that would correspond to the Li
seen in the soil sample
Plant Soil (2024) 495:3–12
Fig. 5  Normalized and averaged LIBS spectra of the fresh and pelletized soil samples; a stacked plot to show similarity of emission
profiles, b-e zoomed in spectral regions with labeled emissions
at great concentrations in the soil indicated by their
increased relative intensities. The only mineral not
detected in the plant samples was Li.
Discussion
In-field detection of plant nutrients and toxic ele-
ments along with determining soil health assess-
ments via soil C and N measurements, are a
9
necessity to improve and understand the sustainabil-
ity of agriculture production. LIBS has been shown
to be a promising technique to demonstrate real-
time soil analysis at low cost and without the need
for intensive sample preparation. In this study, LIBS
was used to rapidly evaluate the elemental composi-
tion in small volume soil sample. The C, N, H, and
O levels can clearly be measured with both elemen-
tal and molecular emissions and with no standard
interferents. Additionally, nutrient species Li, Na,
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 10 Plant Soil (2024) 495:3–12

Mg, K, Ca, Fe, Al, Si can all be clearly detected.
Although not seen in this sample, elements that are
labeled trace, contaminant, and/or toxic elements
such as As, Cd, Hg and Pb can also be detected by
LIBS making it well suited for rapid screening of
soil health and accumulation and cycling through
plant uptake in agricultural and forest lands and
through the food web thereof (Duval et al. 2011;
Liu et al. 2021). A full summary of the emissions
detected in this study are provided in Table 1.
Expanding the research tools available to char-
acterize and understand the nutrient element cor-
relations among plant tissue types and soil depths
is a critical need in the path to developing sustain-
able perennial bioenergy crops that are co-optimized
for biomass valorization aboveground and carbon
sequestration belowground. LIBS has been shown to
require minimal material and minimal sample prepa-
ration to provide this information. This will be crucial
for rapidly identifying the performance of plant root
nutrient uptake from the soil and the subsequent dis-
tribution of these nutrients throughout the plant. For
example, in the samples studied it was evident that
Fe was abundant in the soil, present in local hot spots
in the roots, but absent in the tested plant shoot. The
younger root also showed more concentrated Fe lev-
els, but further sampling would be needed to associ-
ate this trait with root maturity. Another mineral seen
in the soil was Li, which was not seen in any plant
samples. The ability to detect the Li levels in soils
and plants may be useful for other studies (Shahzad
et al. 2016; Kavanagh et al. 2018). These are but a
few examples of the rapid analysis of the nutrient
economy that can be accomplished using LIBS.
In general, the fresh sample measurements com-
pare well with the prepared samples. This points
towards the use of LIBS for in-situ analysis of plant
tissues to rapidly analyze nutrient information. All
nutrient species identified in the fresh samples also
appear in the prepared samples. There are minor dif-
ferences, such as concentrated Fe localities appearing
in the fresh sample scan and not in the prepared sam-
ple scan, but this is due to the inhomogeneity of the
Fe in the samples rather than the preparation method.
However, this does draw attention to the importance
of spatial scanning such that nutrients which form
clusters will be detected and not missed. It may also
be of interest to researchers to examine how different
plant species distribute various micronutrients. It is
also worth pointing out that the LIBS measurements
on both the four-week old and 16-week old samples
were completed without issue. This indicates that
future screening studies can start using samples start-
ing at least at 4 weeks.
While the advantage of measuring fresh plant sam-
ples is evident, there is some give and take associ-
ated with measuring fresh soil versus pelletized soil.
The fresh soil analysis does provide detection of all
the same nutrients seen in the pelletized sample with
little analysis time; however, the pelletized sample
has a far lower level of baseline noise and permits
far more replicate measurements. For these reasons,
both approaches are recommended. First, the fresh
soil can be rapidly analyzed which may result in the
detection of unexpected large levels of a given nutri-
ent. Secondly, the pelletized soil will confirm the pre-
vious measurements and may also unveil lower-level
nutrients which were hidden by the noise levels or

Table 1  List of major and Major Species Observed Major Species Observed Minor Species Observed
minor elemental species’ Wavelength Wavelength Wavelength
emission wavelengths (nm) (nm) (nm)

HI 656.21 Na I 589.59 Fe II 234.38–241.08

CI 193.12 OI 777.19 Fe II 252.80–263.10
CI 247.85 KI 766.49 Fe II 271.44–275.59
Ca II 393.33 KI 769.89 Si I 288.19
Ca II 396.83 NI 742.36 Al I 394.38
Ca I 422.74 NI 744.23 Al I 396.18
Mg II 279.54 NI 746.83 Li I 670.77
I = neutral species and Mg II 280.29
II = singly ionized species Mg I 285.19
in the plasma

Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Plant Soil (2024) 495:3–12
necessitate multiple shots to become better resolved
peaks. Along this chain of thought, the fresh soil
analysis may be improved by using a better tape to
improve the soil adhesion to the slide or using a thin-
ner layer of soil on the slide to mitigate plasma shock-
wave dispersion of the soil sample.
Other improvements that could be made in the
continued implementation of the LIBS for in situ
plant sample analysis would be to vary the spectrome-
ter gating used. Elemental emissions from the excited
plasma depend on the plasma temperature and elec-
tron density. As LIBS plasmas are pulsed, they cool
as the spectra are collected. By adjusting the temporal
window observed for the measurement, different tran-
sitions may be detected which may allow for better
distinguishment between species’ emission peaks.
Author contributions All authors contributed to the study
conception and design. Material preparation, data collection
and analysis were performed by Hunter B. Andrews, Ann M.
Wymore, and Udaya C. Kalluri. The first draft of the manu-
script was written by Hunter B. Andrews and all authors com-
mented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding This work was supported by the United States
Department of Energy (DOE) Center for Bioenergy Innovation
(CBI) project. CBI is a Bioenergy Research Center supported
by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the
DOE Office of Science. This manuscript has been authored by
UT-Battelle, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725
with the U.S. Department of Energy.
Data availability The datasets generated are available from
the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Competing interests The authors have no relevant financial
or non-financial interests to disclose.
References
Che J, Yamaji N, Ma JF (2018) Efficient and flexible uptake
system for mineral elements in plants. New Phytol
219(2):513–517. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​nph.​15140
Conant RT, Paustian K, Elliott ET (2001) Grassland manage-
ment and conversion into grassland: effects on soil carbon.
Ecol Appl 11(2):343–355
Cremers DA, Radziemski LJ (2013) Handbook of laser-
induced breakdown spectroscopy. Wiley, New York
11
Duval BD, Dijkstra P, Natali SM, Megonigal JP, Ketterer ME,
Drake BG, Lerdau MT, Gordon G, Anbar AD, Hungate BA
(2011) Plant− soil distribution of potentially toxic elements
in response to elevated atmospheric CO2. Environ Sci Tech-
nol 45(7):2570–2574. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es102​250u
Hahn DW (2009) Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy for
analysis of aerosol particles: the path toward quantitative
analysis. Spectroscopy (Santa Monica) 24(9)
Hahn DW, Omenetto N (2012) Laser-induced breakdown
spectroscopy (LIBS), part II: review of instrumental and
methodological approaches to material analysis and appli-
cations to different fields. Appl Spectrosc 66(4):347–419
Harman-Ware AE, Sparks S, Addison B, Kalluri UC (2021)
Importance of suberin biopolymer in plant function,
contributions to soil organic carbon and in the produc-
tion of bio-derived energy and materials. Biotechnol-
ogy for Biofuels 14(1):1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s13068-​021-​01892-3
Jansson C, Wullschleger SD, Kalluri UC, Tuskan GA (2010)
Phytosequestration: carbon biosequestration by plants
and the prospects of genetic engineering. Bioscience
60(9):685–696. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1525/​bio.​2010.​60.9.6
Kavanagh L, Keohane J, Cabellos GG, Lloyd A, Cleary J (2018)
Induced plant accumulation of lithium. Geosciences
8(2):56. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​geosc​ience​s8020​056
Krajcarova L, Novotny K, Babula P, Provaznik I, Kucerova P,
Adam V, Martin MZ, Kizek R, Kaiser J (2013) Copper
transport and accumulation in spruce stems (Picea abies
(L.) Karsten) revealed by laser-induced breakdown spec-
troscopy. Int J Electrochem Sci 8:4485–4504
Kuppe CW, Schnepf A, von Lieres E, Watt M, Postma JA
(2022) Rhizosphere models: their concepts and appli-
cation to plant-soil ecosystems. Plant Soil 474:17–55.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11104-​021-​05201-7
Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on
global climate change and food security. Science
304(5677):1623–1627
Lal R (2018) Digging deeper: a holistic perspective of factors
affecting soil organic carbon sequestration in agroecosys-
tems. Glob Chang Biol 24(8):3285–3301. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/​gcb.​14054
Liu W, Yang X, Duan L, Naidu R, Yan K, Liu Y, Wang X, Gao
Y, Chen Y (2021) Variability in plant trace element uptake
across different crops, soil contamination levels and soil
properties in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region of
Northwest China. Sci Rep 11(1):1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1038/​s41598-​021-​81764-w
Lynch JP (2019) Root phenotypes for improved nutrient cap-
ture: an underexploited opportunity for global agriculture.
New Phytol 223(2):548–564. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​nph.​
15738
Martin M, Cheng MD (2000) Detection of chromium aerosol
using time-resolved laser-induced plasma spectroscopy.
Appl Spectrosc 54(9):1279–1285
Martin MZ, Wullschleger SD, Garten CT, Palumbo AV (2003)
Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy for the environ-
mental determination of total carbon and nitrogen in soils.
Appl Opt 42(12):2072–2077
Martin MZ, Wullschleger SD, Garten Jr CT, Palumbo AV
(2007) Measurement of carbon for carbon sequestration
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 12
and site monitoring. Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL),
Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
Martin MZ, Labbé N, André N, Wullschleger SD, Harris RD,
Ebinger MH (2010) Novel multivariate analysis for soil
carbon measurements using laser-induced breakdown
spectroscopy. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74(1):87–93
Martin MZ, Mayes MA, Heal KR, Brice DJ, Wullschleger SD
(2013) Investigation of laser-induced breakdown spectros-
copy and multivariate analysis for differentiating inorganic
and organic C in a variety of soils. Spectrochim Acta B At
Spectrosc 87:100–107
Martin MZ, Glasgow DC, Tschaplinski TJ, Tuskan GA, Gunter
LE, Engle NL, Wymore AM, Weston DJ (2017) Correlat-
ing laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy with neutron
activation analysis to determine the elemental concentra-
tion in the ionome of the Populus trichocarpa leaf. Spec-
trochim Acta B At Spectrosc 138:46–53
Martin M, Brice D, Martin S, André N, Labbé N (2021) Inor-
ganic characterization of switchgrass biomass using laser-
induced breakdown spectroscopy. Spectrochim Acta B At
Spectrosc 186:106323
Miziolek AW, Palleschi V, Schechter I (eds) (2006) Laser
induced breakdown spectroscopy. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
Modlitbová P, Pořízka P, Kaiser J (2020) Laser-induced
breakdown spectroscopy as a promising tool in the ele-
mental bioimaging of plant tissues. Trends Anal Chem
122:115729
Modlitbová P, Střítežská S, Hlaváček A, Prochazka D, Pořízka
P, Kaiser J (2021) Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy
as a straightforward bioimaging tool for plant biologists;
the case study for assessment of photon-upconversion
nanoparticles in Brassica oleracea L. plant. Ecotoxicol
Environ Saf 214:112113
Morgan JB, Connolly EL (2013) Plant-soil interactions: nutri-
ent uptake. Nature Education Knowledge 4(8):2
Paustian K, Andren O, Janzen HH, Lal R, Smith P, Tian G,
Tiessen H, Van Noordwijk M, Woomer PL (1997) Agri-
cultural soils as a sink to mitigate CO2 emissions. Soil
Use Manag 13:230–244
Payyavula RS, Badmi R, Jawdy SS, Rodriguez M Jr, Gunter
L, Sykes RW, Winkeler KA, Collins CM, Rottmann WH,
Chen JG, Yang X (2022) Biomass formation and sugar
release efficiency of Populus modified by altered expres-
sion of a NAC transcription factor. Plant direct 6(8):e419.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pld3.​419
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Plant Soil (2024) 495:3–12
Qu Q, Zhang Z, Peijnenburg WJGM, Liu W, Lu T, Hu B, Chen
J, Chen J, Lin Z, Qian H (2020) Rhizosphere microbiome
assembly and its impact on plant growth. J Agric Food
Chem 68(18):5024–5038. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​jafc.​
0c000​73
Salas-González I, Reyt G, Flis P, Custódio V, Gopaulchan D,
Bakhoum N, Dew TP, Suresh K, Franke RB, Dangl JL, Salt
DE (2021) Coordination between microbiota and root endo-
dermis supports plant mineral nutrient homeostasis. Sci-
ence 371(6525). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​abd06​95
Shahzad B, Tanveer M, Hassan W, Shah AN, Anjum SA,
Cheema SA, Ali I (2016) Lithium toxicity in plants: rea-
sons, mechanisms and remediation possibilities–a review.
Plant Physiol Biochem 107:104–115. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​plaphy.​2016.​05.​034
Singh VK, Tripathi DK, Mao X, Russo RE, Zorba V (2019)
Elemental mapping of lithium diffusion in doped plant
leaves using laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy
(LIBS). Appl Spectrosc 73(4):387–394
Singh VK, Sharma N, Verma ON, Singh VK, Tripathi DK, Lee
Y, Kumar S, Rai PK, Gondal MA (2021) Application of
LIBS to elemental analysis and mapping of plant samples.
At Spectrosc 42:99–113
van Groenigen KJ, Six J, Hungate BA, de Graaff MA, Van Bree-
men N, Van Kessel C (2006) Element interactions limit soil
carbon storage. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(17):6571–6574.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​05090​38103
West TO, Brandt CC, Wilson BS, Hellwinckel CM, Tyler
DD, Marland G, De La Torre Ugarte DG, Larson JA,
Nelson RG (2008) Estimating regional changes in soil
carbon with high spatial resolution. Soil Sci Soc Am J
72:285–294
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing
agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement
and applicable law.